Filed 4/13/15 In re V.I. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re V.I., a Person Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, E061529
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. RIJ119024)
v. OPINION
C.A.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Jacqueline C. Jackson,
Judge. Affirmed.
Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Gregory P. Priamos, County Counsel, and Anna M. Marchand, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Appellant C.A. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order of supervised
visitation, regarding her daughter, V.I. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 26, 2006, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family
Services (CFS) filed a Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300 petition on behalf of
mother’s children, J.I. and V.I. At the time of the petition, V.I. (the child) was 3 years
old.2 The petition alleged that the child came within section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure
to protect) and (g) (no provision for support). The petition further alleged that mother
had an unresolved history of substance abuse.
In a detention report, the social worker reported that this family came to CFS’s
attention on or about February 18, 2006, as a result of a general neglect allegation. It was
reported that mother neglected the child when she left her with the maternal grandparents
for over one year, without any provision for care. The social worker further reported that
mother was on drugs and had been in and out of rehabilitation, and that she only saw the
child sporadically. The social worker interviewed the maternal grandmother, who said
that mother abandoned the child, and that the child had been living with her for over one
year. The maternal grandmother said that mother was in a sober living home, and when
she called the home, she was told mother was kicked out. Mother had minimal contact
1 All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code,
unless otherwise noted.
2 Although both J.I. and the child were involved in the dependency proceedings,
this appeal only concerns the child. Therefore, this opinion will only discuss the child,
and not J.I.
2
with the maternal grandmother and the child since she had been out of rehabilitation.
Mother’s current whereabouts were unknown. The court ordered the child detained on
October 26, 2006.
Jurisdiction/Disposition
The social worker filed a jurisdiction/disposition report on December 12, 2006,
recommending that the court declare the child a dependent of the court, that mother
participate in reunification services, and that mother have monitored visitation, twice a
week, with CFS having the discretion to liberalize them to unmonitored day visits,
overnights, and weekends, when appropriate.
On February 1, 2007, based on a mediated agreement, the court declared the child
a dependent and ordered mother to participate in reunification services. The court
ordered monitored visitation, with CFS having the discretion to liberalize them when
appropriate.
Six-month Status Review
The social worker filed a six-month status review report on July 25, 2007. The
social worker reported that the child was suitably placed with her maternal grandparents.
The social worker further reported that mother was not in compliance with her case plan
and that the social worker had no contact with her since April 13, 2007. As to visitation,
mother’s visits were sporadic. They were monitored by the maternal great-grandmother
or maternal grandfather. The maternal grandmother reported on June 22, 2007, that
mother visited, on average, once a week, beginning that month. The social worker
opined that mother was not capable of taking care of her children. She had been evicted
3
and terminated from and/or quit approximately six jobs since the dependency case
opened. At the six-month review hearing, the court continued mother’s services.
12-month Status Review
The social worker filed a 12-month status review report on January 30, 2008, and
reported that the maternal grandparents and the child relocated to Riverside County. The
child was doing well. Mother had visited more regularly during the months of November
and December 2007. The maternal grandparents reported that the visits were appropriate.
The social worker reported that mother’s priority was not her children, though, since her
husband had cancer. Mother was not making progress with her case plan. The social
worker thus recommended that reunification serves be terminated.
On March 6, 2008, the court found that mother was not in compliance with her
case plan and terminated her reunification services. The court ordered all prior orders not
in conflict to remain in full force and effect. The court then set a section 366.26 hearing.
Section 366.26
The social worker filed a section 366.26 report on July 22, 2008, recommending
that the hearing be continued for at least 120 days in order to allow enough time to
complete a reassessment of the maternal grandparents’ home; a maternal cousin had
moved into the residence and needed to Live Scan. The maternal grandparents informed
CFS that they no longer wanted to pursue adoption, but rather legal guardianship. The
social worker reported that mother was having unmonitored day visits with the child, and
that the visits were reportedly going well. Mother was also participating in a drug
treatment program.
4
The matter was continued several times for various reasons.
The maternal grandparents’ home was subsequently approved on January 15,
2008. The social worker recommended that the court grant legal guardianship to the
maternal grandparents.
In an interim report filed on May 21, 2009, the social worker reported that mother
was in agreement with the maternal grandparents becoming the legal guardians.
At a section 366.26 hearing on May 28, 2009, the court ordered legal guardianship
as the permanent plan. However, the court found that further CFS supervision was
needed and retained jurisdiction. The order establishing guardianship simply provided
for visitation, but did not indicate whether the visits were to be supervised or
unsupervised.
Transfer to Riverside County
In early December 2009, the Los Angeles County Juvenile Court ordered the case
transferred to Riverside County. On December 22, 2009, the Riverside County Juvenile
Court accepted the transfer.
Postpermanent Plan Review
The social worker filed a status review report on June 8, 2010, recommending that
the dependency be terminated. The social worker reported that mother had not
maintained regular visitation with the child. The social worker attached a copy of the
case plan, which stated that mother was to contact the Riverside County Department of
Public Social Services (DPSS) to arrange visits. At a hearing on June 22, 2010, the court
followed the recommendation and terminated the dependency.
5
Section 388
On May 6, 2014, mother filed a section 388 petition, in propria persona, asking the
court to rescind the legal guardianship, place the child back in her home, “lift [a]
domestic violen[ce] restraining order,”3 and transfer the case back to Los Angeles
County. As to changed circumstances, mother alleged that the maternal grandmother
physically abused the child’s sister, that the maternal grandfather “failed to protect,” and
that the maternal grandfather admitted to having contact with an alleged rapist. Mother
feared the child was at risk of physical, sexual, and mental abuse. As to best interest of
the child, mother alleged that the maternal grandparents failed to follow court orders
regarding visitation between her and the child, and that the bond between them had been
severely strained as a result. The court set a hearing for May 30, 2014.
On May 30, 2014, the court held a hearing on the petition. Mother appeared, and
the court appointed her counsel. The court continued the matter to June 30, 2014, for
DPSS to complete an investigation/report. The court further ordered DPSS to establish a
visitation schedule with mother, in compliance with the restraining order.
The social worker filed an addendum report on June 25, 2014, and recommended
that the court affirm the legal guardianship. The social worker also recommended that
the visits between mother and the child occur at least one time a month, and that they be
supervised by an independent adult agreed upon by all parties. The social worker
reported that she interviewed mother and asked her to bring all of the paperwork that
3 The maternal grandfather reported that, at some point, he filed a temporary
restraining order against mother.
6
reflected the court order’s regarding either visitation or custody. Mother brought some
letters from individuals stating that she was a good person and would make a good
employee, and two certificates of completion for classes. She also brought three court
orders, but they did not apply to the child. She presented a visitation order, but it applied
to J.I. Mother insisted that even though the papers did not have the child’s name on
them, they applied to her. Mother further stated her belief that the maternal grandmother
abused the child by hitting her in the face, and the maternal grandparents did not want the
child anymore.
The social worker interviewed the maternal grandfather, who said that he was
concerned for the child because mother was very difficult to get along with. He had tried
to talk to her on the telephone, but every conversation ended up in an argument. He
stated that he filed the temporary restraining order between himself and mother because
mother could be hostile and threatening. The maternal grandfather said that if he was the
court, he would reaffirm the current guardianship order and order two supervised visits a
month.
The social worker also interviewed the maternal grandmother, who stated that she
was concerned for the child’s safety because she believed mother continued to use
methamphetamine and marijuana. The maternal grandmother expressed concern with
mother’s mental health, noting that she had been placed on a section 5150 hold at least
one time. The maternal grandmother said she thought the court should maintain the
guardianship order and order no visitation.
7
The social worker additionally interviewed the child, who said that she did not
want to go to mother’s house because she did not feel safe there. She did not know all
the people there and did not know mother’s current husband. She said they had a lot of
dogs with fleas. The child said she wanted to stay with her grandparents because they
kept her safe and met her needs. The child added that she never wants to live with her
mother. She wanted to see her more often, but just in the local area. She said if they
were going outside of the area, another adult needed to be with them, since she was afraid
mother might not bring her back.
The social worker further reported that mother had a history of methamphetamine
and marijuana use. However, mother refused to complete a test, so it was unknown if she
was currently clean and sober. She also had a history of mental health problems. The
social worker noted that mother could not demonstrate that she had addressed these
concerns.
The court held the continued section 388 hearing on June 30, 2014. Mother was
not present, but was represented by counsel. County counsel asked the court to deny the
motion and order supervised visitation once a month, to be supervised by a third party
agreed upon by the legal guardians. Counsel for the child stated that the child would like
visits. She informed the court, as follows: “I think there was a meeting and it was agreed
upon which would be the best resolution. I am asking that the Court follow the
recommendations.” The court asked if the child was comfortable with the visits in a
public setting, and counsel said yes. Mother’s counsel informed the court that mother
called him two days prior, and that he emailed her the social worker’s report that was
8
prepared for the hearing. Mother said she would bring her counsel information that
morning, but failed to appear at the hearing. Her counsel asked the court for a minimum
of one visit a month, and added that perhaps “more time [could be arranged] between the
parties as they go forward.” Mother’s counsel said the child wanted a relationship with
her mother and then stated, “So we’d ask the Court to make the appropriate visitation
order.” Counsel for the legal guardians (the maternal grandparents) submitted on the
social worker’s recommendations, and stated, “my understanding is the Court denied the
JV-180 except for regarding visitation, and we are only here regarding visitation at this
time.” The court responded, “Right. I don’t think I had filled out the paperwork, which
I’ll do today so it will have today’s date. But the 388 petition is going to be denied in its
entirety. And then I’ll make the visitation orders.” The court proceeded to deny the
section 388 petition, since it felt that it was not in the child’s best interest. The court then
ordered visitation to be once a month for two hours, supervised by an adult approved by
the legal guardians. The visits were ordered to be in a public location. Mother’s counsel
asked if there could be more time, if the parties agreed. The court said it was not inclined
to order more time unless the child asked for it, noting that the child was 11 years old and
that the family had been through a lot. The court asked if there was anything else, and
mother’s counsel said, “Nothing further.”
ANALYSIS
The Court Properly Ordered Supervised Visitation
Mother argues that the court’s order permitting only supervised visitation should
be reversed. Specifically, she contends that DPSS was required to file a section 388
9
petition to modify the visitation term of the legal guardianship pursuant to California
Rules of Court, rule 5.740(c) (rule 5.740(c)). She further argues that the change in the
visitation order, from unsupervised visits to supervised, was an abuse of discretion, since
there had been no problems with visits and she had regained custody of her other
daughter. We conclude that the court properly ordered supervised visitation.
Mother first argues that the order modifying the legal guardianship order must be
reversed because DPSS “failed to seek such a modification through the filing of a section
388 petition, as due process and rule authority required.” However, the premise of
mother’s argument is false, since she appears to be asserting that DPSS sought a
modification in visitation. The record establishes that DPSS did not seek to modify
visitation. Mother filed her section 388 petition, asking the court to rescind the legal
guardianship. The court held the initial hearing on the petition on May 30, 2014, but
continued the matter for investigation. At that same hearing, the court additionally
ordered DPSS to establish a visitation schedule with mother, “in compliance with [the]
restraining order” that the maternal grandfather had filed. We note that the previous
visitation order, which was made when the court established the legal guardianship,
merely provided for visitation, but did not indicate any schedule, or whether the visits
were to be supervised or unsupervised. Thus, the court apparently wanted to make a
more specific order, noting that the visitation schedule should consider the restraining
10
order that the maternal grandfather had filed against mother.4 In compliance with the
court’s order to establish a visitation schedule, DPSS investigated the matter and
recommended that visits occur at least one time a month for two hours, and that they be
supervised by an independent adult agreed upon by all parties. Thus, the court raised the
issue of visitation, apparently on its own. Since DPSS was not seeking to modify the
visitation term of the legal guardianship, as mother claims, it was not required to file a
section 388 petition.
Moreover, the record indicates that mother was fully aware that the court was
going to make a visitation order. By the time of the continued hearing on June 30, 2014,
the court had already denied the section 388 petition and, as it indicated, just needed to
“fill[] out the paperwork.” As the child’s counsel stated and the court confirmed, the
only issue to be determined at that hearing was visitation. The child’s counsel indicated
that there had previously been a meeting, and “it was agreed upon which would be the
best resolution.” When the court addressed mother’s counsel, he asked the court for a
minimum of one visit a month. He stated that the child wanted a relationship with
mother and simply said, “So we’d ask the Court to make the appropriate visitation order.”
Thus, mother’s counsel was aware that the court was going to make a visitation order at
that hearing. We further note that mother’s counsel did not request unsupervised
visitation. He also did not object when the court ordered supervised visitation. He only
4 Although the record does not indicate when the restraining order was obtained,
the first mention of it was in the social worker’s report dated June 30, 2014. Thus, it is
reasonable to assume that the restraining order was obtained some time after the legal
guardianship was established in 2009.
11
asked if there could be more time if the parties agreed. Therefore, even assuming
arguendo that DPSS was seeking a modification in the visitation order, as mother claims,
mother has waived her claims on appeal. She failed to raise any objections in the
juvenile court, but rather acquiesced in the proceedings. (In re Dakota S. (2000) 85
Cal.App.4th 494, 501-502.)
Mother’s reliance on In re Lance V. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 668 (Lance V.) in
support of her position is misplaced. Lance V. concerned a change in a visitation order
following an unsuccessful mediation hearing. (Id. at pp. 673-675.) The court in that case
extensively discussed the purpose of mediation. (Id. at pp. 674-676.) Furthermore, the
court reversed the juvenile court’s order modifying visitation because the mother was
deprived of due process, in that she was not provided notice that a change might occur,
and she was not given an opportunity to be heard. (Id. at p. 676.)
In contrast, in the instant case, mother had notice that the court was going to make
another visitation order, as indicated by the record of the June 30, 2014, hearing. (See
ante.) We further note that mother was present at the previous hearing, when the court
ordered DPSS to establish a visitation schedule with mother, in compliance with the
restraining order. She also had notice of the social worker’s recommendation for the
court to order supervised visitation. Moreover, as discussed ante, the main issue at the
June 30, 2014 hearing was visitation, and the court gave every party an opportunity to
speak. Although mother claims that “it was not even clear whether [she] received the
social worker’s report in advance of the hearing,” mother’s counsel had the report, and he
verified that he had emailed it to her prior to the hearing. Although mother was not
12
personally present at the hearing, she was represented by counsel, and her counsel
discussed the issue of the visitation order on her behalf. “The general rule is that
personal appearance by a party at a civil proceeding is not essential; appearance by an
attorney is sufficient and equally effective.” (In re Dolly D. (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 440,
445.)
Furthermore, the court had the jurisdiction to make such visitation order. “‘A
juvenile court has a continuing responsibility to account for the welfare of a dependent
child under its jurisdiction, wherever placed, unless and until a permanent and stable
home is established.’ [Citation.] Where legal guardianship is chosen pursuant to section
366.26, the juvenile court retains jurisdiction over the child until the legal guardianship is
established. [Citation.] Where a relative is appointed the legal guardian, and the child
has been placed with the relative for at least 12 months, ‘the court shall, except if the
relative guardian objects, or upon a finding of exceptional circumstances, terminate its
dependency jurisdiction and retain jurisdiction over the child as a ward of the
guardianship, as authorized by [section 366.4].’” (In re Joshua S. (2003) 106
Cal.App.4th 1341, 1352-1353, fn. and italics omitted.) We note that rule 5.740, which
mother cites, “does not divest the juvenile court of its authority to fashion orders in the
best interest of the minor while maintaining its continuing jurisdiction over the legal
guardianship.” (In re Z.C. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1271, 1286; see § 366.4.)
Finally, contrary to mother’s claim, the decision to order supervised visitation was
well within the court’s discretion. The maternal grandfather told the social worker that
mother could be hostile and threatening, which is why he obtained a restraining order
13
against her. He was concerned about the child because mother was difficult to get along
with, and he felt the court should order supervised visitation. The maternal grandmother
also expressed concern for the child’s safety since she believed mother was using
controlled substances. The maternal grandmother was concerned about the people who
lived with mother, including mother’s extremely ill husband and another male, who she
believed had drug and assault convictions. The maternal grandmother was further
worried about mother’s mental health, noting that she had previously been placed on a
section 5150 hold. The maternal grandmother did not think the court should order any
visitation between mother and the child. Moreover, the child said did not want to go to
mother’s house because she did not feel safe there. The child told the social worker that
she did want to visit mother, but if it was going to be outside the Banning/Beaumont area,
she wanted another adult with them, for fear that mother might not bring her back. The
social worker confirmed that mother had a history of methamphetamine and marijuana
use, and that it was unknown if she was currently sober, since she refused to drug test.
The social worker also confirmed that mother had a history of mental health problems. In
light of this evidence, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in ordering the
visitation to be supervised.
14
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST
Acting P. J.
We concur:
MILLER
J.
CODRINGTON
J.
15
In re V.I. CA4/2
Combined Opinion